Most Lethal Missiles [Archive]

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 01:13 PM

I'm truly rusty with my missile knowledge and am reading a few things to try and refresh my memory.

What's the most lethal/successful missile to date?

Is there anything in operation yet that could shoot down an SR-71 at its highest speed and altitude?

This I'm not sure about: During the Falklands War, the Argentinian missiles could not shoot down Harriers, due to recognising that they were indeed Harriers, allegedly the missiles themselves were of English origin and programmed to identify 'one of their own.'

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

_ _ _
If u notice this notice u will notice that this notice isn't worth noticing.

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 01:13 PM

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 01:15 PM

A missile is a missile...English, Russian, American...they aren't programmed not to shoot someone down. If you lock up a IR homing missile...it tracks a heat source, not a flag.

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 01:33 PM

If i remeber well there was a problem of version./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Argentina had a 9D version witch was if tail aspect only one, and Uk used all aspect 9M(?)surprising Argenitinians with head on shoots, and aslos Harrier was more maneuvrable than the Mirages,Nesher, Skyhawks..

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 01:45 PM

No, missiles don't really care for the nationality of the heat source they're aiming at. Lethal and successful missiles? Hmm the AMRAAM sure has quite a good record so far. Of course few other missiles have had a chance to prove themselves as well.

You could also say the Stinger has had quite an influence on the Soviet war in Afghanistan, even if the actual PK was probably not that high.

In the end it's more of a philosophical than a technical question. I'm sure a Russian S-300 with its huge warhead is more dangerous than a Stinger, and probably would be able to shoot down an SR-71. That still wouldn't help you against a helicopter popping up behind a hill 500 meters away /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

- Caretaker

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 01:46 PM

UK had AIM-9L during the Falklands war, the first all aspect Sidewinder.

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 01:52 PM

Many Radar guided missiles has the ability to bring down a SR-71. The SR-71 cruises a around mach 3 and many Radar guided missiles like the AMRAAM "cruises" at Mach 4. the problem however is the altitude at which the SR-71 flies, (or did fly) around 85000, not many modern fighters are able for that!

The most leathal missile to date. Well you need a war to test that, not much of a sport in Afganistan and Iraq!!
I believe the Amraam, or new versions of AIM-9 have a high Kill ratio. Cannot say about the russian counterparts

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 01:57 PM

Whould you be surprised to hear that Amraam pk is lower then 50% at equyal with that of a Shafir 2?
Well put in other whay AIM54C had a low PK.
Surprise AIM7E has a bigger PK than Amraam/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Not to mention 9 Mike/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif witch had a good PK too.

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 02:00 PM

I would have to say a 9Mike. Damn good missile!

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 02:07 PM

IMHO, and I'm sure many others will agree, the Russian AA-11 Archer heat-seeker is one of the greatest missles of all time.

DrCR

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 02:25 PM

Weren't the Argentinian planes mostly carrying Matra's?

Either way, the reason no Harriers were lost to Air to Air was more down to circumstances - the Argentinians were after the ships (at the limit of their range, no fuel for dogfighting), and the Harriers were trying to stop them.

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 02:29 PM

KaiserB_uk wrote:
- Weren't the Argentinian planes mostly carrying
- Matra's?
-
- Either way, the reason no Harriers were lost to Air
- to Air was more down to circumstances - the
- Argentinians were after the ships (at the limit of
- their range, no fuel for dogfighting), and the
- Harriers were trying to stop them.

Perhaps, but they still go fighter cover, after all Galland trained all of their high ranking airforce officers/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ..I would be pure Slaughter to send bombload planes and not consider protecting them.

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 02:41 PM

The aim 7M sparrow probably has a larger pk than the aim120.. larget warhead.

<DIV ALIGN=LEFT>
<TABLE><TR><TD WIDTH=380><HR></TD</TR></TABLE>
<FONT face=VERDANA size=-5>Sigma

Pilot, FreeBirds VFW</FONT>

<A HREF="http://freebirdswing.org" TARGET="FreeBirds">
http://freebirdswing.org/images/fb-vfw-banner3.jpg
</A>
</DIV>

XP3200+@2300Mhz Vcore=1.85
A7N8X Dlx rev. 1.006
Corsair XMS-LL PC3200 2x256 (5-2-2-2T)
ATI Radeon 9700Pro
Maxtor 80gig/8mb cache ata/133
LiteOn 52x24x52 CDRW
Thermalright SLK800U/Tornado 80mmx38mm
3x80mm case fans

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 02:58 PM

Sigma1 wrote:
- The aim 7M sparrow probably has a larger pk than the
- aim120.. larget warhead.

Wel size desn't matter/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . I suspect AIM54C had a bigger warhead and still a lower PK/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .
PK depends on many factors including lauching evelope,tactic use, enemy awereness, atmospheric conditions, age of the weapon(how many cicles takeoff-landing the missile had endured),maintenance,and many more.

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 05:14 PM

I know the missile I fear the most is one fired by the manpad punk.

It doesn't spike you, you usually can't see it coming, and even if you do you can't evade it.

Second most dangerous of course is the AK-47, third most dangerous is a tree. Fourth would probably be a bridge. Fifth would have to be those signs along the sides of the runway that waste you if you accidentally drive off.

Message Edited on 06/12/0305:15PM by StuviP

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 05:17 PM

And 6th would be the Pilot featured in today's video/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

_ _ _
If u notice this notice u will notice that this notice isn't worth noticing.

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 05:36 PM

Oh I wouldn't worry about him. He'd probably try a 200ft split S or inverted super cobra and kill himself /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX

06-12-2003, 06:43 PM

"Is there anything in operation yet that could shoot down an SR-71 at its highest speed and altitude?"

At current there is nothing in anyones arsenal that has been released that can outfly the SR-71.The acft was in use since the mid 60's and none have been lost to missle fire.Many have tried to shoot it down with missles but none have been successful.

I believe Isrial (as with a few other countries) tried (cant remember what war it was in) to shot one down.They aquired "LOCK" and fired but the plane just throttled up and said by to the missle.With no thrust rating on the SR-71's engines and the altitude at which it flies,you would be hard pressed to find anything short of a missle that cruises into outer space and then re-enters the atmoshpere to even attempt at shooting one down (but not sure if any are in use).

Hell even flying at a fairly low altitude (compaired to its normal altitude),I would still be willing to bet nothing could catch it.

The SR-71 is and always will be one of if not the best reconnassin planes ever built.

Message Edited on 06/12/03â 06:44PM by Morbius1

Message Edited on 06/12/0306:45PM by Morbius1

XyZspineZyX

06-13-2003, 06:04 AM

Hopefully it's not like the missiles in Flanker 2.0, i've never evaded one, i've tried everything i can think of flares, chaff, Flying like a madman...and evertime hole in the fusalage the size of a VW Bus, and an engine fire i could start a forest fire with...Stupid good missiles...

~aaron white

XyZspineZyX

06-13-2003, 08:48 AM

- At current there is nothing in anyones arsenal that
- has been released that can outfly the SR-71.

Dear Morbius1, let me disagree with your opinion. Did you ever hear about such planes as MiG-25, Mig-31 ? They were developed to intercept cruise missiles and high-altitude flying reconnaissance planes of such classes as Boeings airliners with special spy electronics, U-2 (U-2, TR-1) and SR-71. Mig-25 now is mostly used as reconnaissance plane with elements of SEAD (able to carry ARM Kh-31P), but still on duty as interceptor. MiG-31 has grown from deep modernization of MiG-25 and prefers the tactic of team work, when 4 planes provide a unit of wide-spread net of air defence.
To deal with high-speed planes such as SR-71, MiG-31's mostly uses following method: ground-based radar locates target wich moving too fast far behind the borders of the interception; interceptors immediately take off to prevent possible violation of aerial space by opponet plane (SR-71). During their flight interceptors are being guided by ground radars, which track every move of possibly hostile plane; but MiG-31 has powerful onboard equipment to provide tracking of target in sector specified on take-off stage by ground radar and to share information about target between other planes in interception group.
To shoot down fast-moving targets Mig-25 and Mig-31 use R-33 (NATO AA-9 Amos long range missile) and R-40 (NATO AA-6 Acrid medium range missile). Plane high speed, multiple rocket firing capability ang very high speed of missiles provide sufficient kill ratio for SR-71.
SR-71 preferably flew in areas which are far enough from intrceptor bases and SAM missiles. When interceptors and long range SAM systems able to take Blackbird donw to the ground have appeared, SR-71 ceased their operations over the dangerous areas (plane is too expencive to loose it because of the dumb bravery with motto "I'm fearlees pilot"), and flew along the borders of potentialy dangerous areas. We can't but mention the human factor, when pilots and SAM crewsmen understood that every shot-down reconnaisance plane will only escalate the tension in diplomatic affair between conflict-involved countries. That is why SR-71 were allowed to slightly violate the borders of USSR, which gave the additional impact on the minds of common americans that they have plane which is able to keep itself away from any missile and collect valueable military information without any threat for itself. While, of course, things were nos so simple...

- The SR-71 is and always will be one of if not the
- best reconnassin planes ever built.
-

Here I agree with you. SR-71 is an excellent example of technical and scientific achievements. Attractive plane, which power is evident from the first glance on it. And it is more sympathetical to me for their absence of weaponry onboard. Military plane without any lethal capabilities, but dangerous enough to be not considered as threat.

Alexander S. Golub

e-mail ASGolub@mail.ru
ICQ PIN 82626767

Minsk, Belarus

XyZspineZyX

06-13-2003, 09:29 AM

For me one of the most deadly missiles is Igla (SA16 and SA18). Do not forget 14 allied aircraft were downed with it in ODS in 1991... And stinger is deadly also... In fact, every manpad by my opinion.

TT

XyZspineZyX

06-13-2003, 11:47 AM

for me, the most lethal missile is definitely any missile with a nuclear warhead /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX

06-13-2003, 05:25 PM

As he probably had SA and AA missiles in mind, you probably mean Nike Hercules or Nike Ayax... As far as I know those were the only SA missiles to carry nuke head...
Sure wouldn't like to be knocked out by one of those! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards, TT

XyZspineZyX

06-14-2003, 11:14 AM

Over 1,000 missiles were fired at the SR-71 Blackbird - and not one even got close.

SR-71s cruised at Mach 3.2 at 75,000 feet plus with ease and whenever challenged, the pilots were told by their engineers in the back seat to "Push It Up". The Pilots would push the throttles forward and would fly faster than Mach 3.5 at over 80,000 feet - which was as fast as a bullet...except faster.

The SR-71 mocked the finest modern-day fighters in the world (both MIGs in combat & F14s/F15s in training) - and the Blackbird was almost three times their age.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/SR-71/Small/EC94-42531-3.jpg

Message Edited on 06/14/03â 10:25PM by N.J.

Message Edited on 06/14/03â 10:25PM by N.J.

Message Edited on 06/16/0303:40PM by N.J.

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 09:19 AM

'bump'/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/YF-12/Medium/EC74-4111.jpg

Dark_Knight_667

06-15-2003, 09:51 AM

By defeated you would mean shot down..thats pretty good considering the SR-71 is an unarmed recon bird..now if you mean outran..of course it did..it's the fastest Jet powered aircraft built to date that is known to exist anyways..course..there is always the aurora..

DK

http://theblackknights.50megs.com/pics/patchcontest/MavsBKpatch2.gif

The Knights have arrived. 1 ghz AMD Tbird, GF2mx200, sblive xgamer, 30 gig hdd, gigabyte ga7zx mb, 52x cd rom, microsoft intellimouse explorer, Saitek x45 HOTAS

<center><a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/" target="mash"><img src="http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg" width="205" height="95" border="0"

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 10:14 AM

As I already mentioned, SR-71 uses proper and wise tactics for expensive plane to not be shot down -- it simply avoids dangerous zones. Nobody in normal phychic health will not go into zone controlled by S-300 or S-400 SAM complexes and MiG-31 interceptor groups. That is why Blackbird was never hit (human and politic factors also should be taken in consideration). Other weapon systems are not able to shot down SR-71 at the alt. above 30 km on a speed 3 M -- they are simply out of hitting range. And Blackbirds flew only in zones which are quite far away from runways where interceptors are basing or where it is hard to deploy appropriate SAM complexes. Ask any of crewsman of radar station near the any airfields, how far his radar is able to detect planes -- and you'll get an answer, that far enough to prevent passing any plane unnoticed. Simply SR-71 is like "uncatchable cowboy Joe" -- nobody catch him, because hobody has any will to do it. There are too many factors to state clear, that nothing can beat such fast plane. For every trick always can be found a counter-trick ...

But here we're speaking about "Most Lethal Missiles", so, people, forgive me for diverting to the side topic.

Alexander S. Golub

e-mail ASGolub@mail.ru
ICQ PIN 82626767

Minsk, Belarus

Message Edited on 06/15/0310:17AM by Slonick

britgliderpilot

06-15-2003, 11:08 AM

Some of the later Soviet SAMs could probably have hit the Blackbird if they'd tried. And the Blackbird was being really lazy . . . .
But there was a point at which it wasn't really worth trying to shoot one down anymore.

The trouble with flying at Mach 3.5 at 80,000 feet is that by the time the missile gets there, the aircraft is a very, very long way away . . . . even if you've got a faster missile, you don't really have a chance of catching the thing.

Who said the Israelis fired at a Blackbird?
I don't think they're THAT interested in their national security . . . . . /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

MiG's 25 and 31 wouldn't have been able to catch the Blackbird. Supersonic dash, change the engines every flight, and they still wouldn't manage the same speed, let alone the same speed cruise . . . .
Their only hope would be to see it coming a long way away, and then take off and accelerate so that when it gets near they might have enough speed for a better missile shot.

So that wouldn't have worked.

Most lethal missiles - well we don't know, because a lot of them haven't been properly tested.
Lots of US missiles have (ahem), but very few Soviet missiles have been fired in the way they were intended, or in the way which would ensure a decent chance of hitting.

No heatseeker can identify an aircraft - unless the new Aim9x and ASRAAM with their supposed thermal imagers can identify the shape . . . . .
So there goes that theory on the Falklands conflict.

They did send the Exocet-carriers out that far without real cover. They didn't do it very often - France hadn't delivered many when the conflict came onto the table, and refused to deliver any more in a very touching gesture /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
I think they only had about six air-launch Exocets to play with.
They did use bombs as well, of course.
But I think whoever it was said they didn't have the range to play around with was right - they didn't.

The Argentinian assumption was that we would be unable to defend the islands (they heard we were selling our carriers, which we were thinking of), and that we hence wouldn't. That was a tactical mistake, because I don't think they'd considered having to make long-range strikes on ships in the wrong place.

Not sure the Harriers were more maneuvrable - they're not great in a dogfight, bar the useful thrust vectoring stuff which isn't used too often . . . . the missiles were a lot better and being used in optimum circumstances.

Put it like this - a heatseeker looking for a hot Mirage engine against a very cool sky is going to have a much higher success rate than one being used in a desert conflict . . . . and where have more of the US conflicts been recently?

There isn't really any definitive data - you can't compare like with like, so we really don't know.

Theoretically, R73, ASRAAM, and Aim9x are as good as you're likely to get. Medium range is always a bit iffy.

AMRAAM's good at BVR, Sparrow is supposed to suck bigtime . . . . much more than that?

Glider pilot . . . . twist and turn

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 11:35 AM

Oh, i think there are quite few missiles which can take down this SR...
Examples:

- Aspide Mk1/Mk2
Range: 75km
Speed: Mach 4

- Sky Flash (BAE)
Range: 45km
Speed: MAch 4

- Russian AA-9 Amos
Range: 160Km
Speed: Mach 4.5

Description (fas.org):"The R-33 long-range missile was created for arming MiG-31 fighter-interceptors. It became operational in 1980 and is capable of engaging SR-71 strategic reconnaissance aircraft, B-52 and B-1 bombers, aircraft of front and transport aviation, and also helicopters and cruise missiles"

So you see, there are some missiles which can engage the SR and this Amos is especially developed to take down Ultra-Mach Planes.

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 11:46 AM

- Who said the Israelis fired at a Blackbird?
- I don't think they're THAT interested in their
- national security . . . . .

During the war with Egypt, etc, the Blackbird over flew the battle field taking pictures of tank damage. It was first fired at by the Egyptians and then by the Israelis.

Heard the story by a Pilot, who had photos of him viewing the photos that he took. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"The Peacock will be on time, fan his tail."

William Frederick "Bull" Halsey

Message Edited on 06/15/03â 04:48AM by BoCfuss

Message Edited on 06/15/0304:49AM by BoCfuss

britgliderpilot

06-15-2003, 02:08 PM

Heh heh heh . . . . . nice one there. Glad neither of them hit it!

If a missile can go faster than the Blackbird, doesn't mean it can catch it.

Most of them only go mach .5 faster than it can, and that's just not enough to catch the bastard.

Most of the ranges quoted will be against reasonably level targets, coming straight on. A tail-on shot with most of these missiles would still be very iffy.

Glider pilot . . . . twist and turn

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 03:14 PM

oh, i wouldnâÂ´t say that. The missiles are fast indeed, especially the amos.It also can vary its speed, so there is no chance of missing. Those missile wasnâÂ´t testet against an SR, so i canâÂ´t promisse you 100% that it would hit and you canâÂ´t promisse that it wouldnâÂ´t. I see, some ppl underestimate the russian missiles.
Just an example: The Archer is in all ways superior to the european ASRAM.

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 05:02 PM

some guy said eirlier that a missile is a missile whatever its nationatility, and it will shoot anything down. But what about the american Patriot Missile, that recognises a friendly tag and doesnt fire, however if a plane doesnt have that radar tag, it opens fire.

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 05:23 PM

Sure, missile is missile. But i tried to say, that the Amos was especially developed for taking down ÃÅ“ber-mach planes, the sr-71/72!

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 10:46 PM

tomcat1974 wrote:
- Whould you be surprised to hear that Amraam pk is
- lower then 50% at equyal with that of a Shafir 2?
- Well put in other whay AIM54C had a low PK.
- Surprise AIM7E has a bigger PK than Amraam/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- Not to mention 9 Mike/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif witch had a good PK too.
-

Comparatively speaking, the AIM54C was in testing in the 80s, And the 6 on 6 test occured in the early 90's. Fired 3-4 times in the late 90's and missed due to the new maintainers being switched from a S3 to the F14 squad (Wired wrong, makes a big difference). And plus the fact, that the missile was probably fired at RAero..

But for the AIM54A, check acig.org. Although, we don't know what the actual numbers were fired.

In testing, the missile had a high PK.

XyZspineZyX

06-15-2003, 11:05 PM

god.Tribun wrote:
- The Archer is in all ways superior
- to the european ASRAM.

Is that so? A 15 year old Soviet missile design is superior to the current British one.

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 01:50 AM

Most Lethal Air-to-Air Missile??
it has to be the IR-seeking Python 4, made by rafael.. no doubt about it... read about it, get some brocures about it.. and you'll see..

Although out of patriotism, i have to say that the MATRA MAGIC R550 is a really decent missile too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

cheers,
asnamara

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 09:21 AM

Cheers for that, that's what I was trying to convey. Some kind of Friend Or Foe possibility.

It might sound a bit far-fetched but maybe they could/have implemented a chip in all products made by a particular company, if that makes sense!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ed001 wrote:
- some guy said eirlier that a missile is a missile
- whatever its nationatility, and it will shoot
- anything down. But what about the american Patriot
- Missile, that recognises a friendly tag and doesnt
- fire, however if a plane doesnt have that radar tag,
- it opens fire.
-
-

_ _ _
If u notice this notice u will notice that this notice isn't worth noticing.

britgliderpilot

06-16-2003, 09:37 AM

. . . . What's an Sr72 supposed to be?

Still not sure an A2A missile can catch a Blackbird . . . .

Patriot has IFF . . .. but it's a radar missile. And as has been proven recently, the IFF on the Patriot doesn't always work too well . . . . . ahem.
(Or was that on the aircraft? Hmn)

Putting a chip in all missiles so they can't shoot down one of their own is the IFF idea - can't really be done by manufacturer. Besides, you'd have to be very careful about it . . . .

Glider pilot . . . . twist and turn

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 10:16 AM

the most deadly missiles currently are Aim9X, ASRAAM and IRIS-T.
this is because unlike the older generation of missiles (R73 and Python IV) thye have Imagining Infra red seekers. these can actually see the target visually and therefore ignore everything else. so flares can do little if anything at all.

somebody said that this is as good as it can ever get. that is not true. next step would be to have a MMW seeker which will be far more accurate.

as for SR71 - there has been a known encounter with the russians where a single SR71 had a simultaneous lock on by 4 Mig31s.
the reason why none were ever shot were because SAMs were fired at them. SAMs have to travel against gravity. they have lower inertia and by the time they reach 70000ft the target is already running away. the Mig21 was the interceptor available but it ususally ran out of feul before it could catch up. if a missile can be launched at the plane then by all means it will not be able to outrun it. a modern AMRAAM ussually is paced upto Mach4.

someone also mentioned that MANPADS like Igla were deadly and effective.
WRONG. MANPADS only have a physcological effect. they are extreamly short ranged. and in battle conditions it is hard to get a decent lock on. you need to place the seeker on the aircraft. now if this aircraft were even flying at a decent speed of say 500knots then it would be extreamly hard to take a look at the plane through that tiny seeker. more often that others the terrain wont be helpful at all and by the time you even see the plane it is right on top of you. MNAPADS are also veyr suspectible to IRCMs. its not very hard to out mnaouver one given you have enough warning and ususally comes down to how sophisticated the aircraft's EW suite is.
all in all even the most modern MANPADS only have a hit probability of 30-45%.

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 11:23 AM

Claw85 wrote:
-
- someone also mentioned that MANPADS like Igla were
- deadly and effective.
- WRONG. MANPADS only have a physcological effect.
- they are extreamly short ranged. and in battle
- conditions it is hard to get a decent lock on. you
- need to place the seeker on the aircraft. now if
- this aircraft were even flying at a decent speed of
- say 500knots then it would be extreamly hard to take
- a look at the plane through that tiny seeker. more
- often that others the terrain wont be helpful at all
- and by the time you even see the plane it is right
- on top of you. MNAPADS are also veyr suspectible to
- IRCMs. its not very hard to out mnaouver one given
- you have enough warning and ususally comes down to
- how sophisticated the aircraft's EW suite is.
- all in all even the most modern MANPADS only have a
- hit probability of 30-45%.

I was the one to mention the manpads. I agree with you fully. But: I mean they are deadly because it's hard to get them visual, and MLWS systems usualy don't detect them. I know damn well that it's hard to hit an SR71 with manpad /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , but they are useful against low speed aircraft or helis, attacking your position. Igla was constructed especially to fire against the incoming attacker, first it climbs over the target and in an ideal case then dives towards it and hits it somewhere near cockpit...

(Igla has a special button which you have press if you fire after the attacking aircraft, so you don't overheat the seeker head)

This gives you very very little time to do any significant maneouver or to deploy flares...

In most of the cases pilots never saw the MANPAD coming and that's the reason why I think they are deadly.

And remember, that in operation Desert Storm 14 allied aircraft were shot down by MANPADS (mostly Iglas, also some SA14 Gremlins). This is the fact and not my opinion...

Best regards, TT

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 11:28 AM

"Is that so? A 15 year old Soviet missile design is superior to the current British one."

Yes indeed. Here is one more quote from fas.org:

"The AA-11 can also be used on older planes which will now be able to effectively handle the US' highly maneuverable F-15 and F-16 jets. The AA-11 missile is based on all-new components, use new high-energy solid fuel and an advanced guidance and control system which has made it possible to minimize their size. Their exceptionally high accuracy is ensured by the missile's main secret, the so-called transverse control engine, which rules out misses during the final approach trajectory. The transverse control engine is still without parallel in the world.
the AA-11 turned out to be superior to the Sidewinder AIM-9L in all respects: homing head field of view, acquisition range, maneuverability, ease of designation, and target lock-on. The Germans concluded that the ASRAAM demonstrated a serious lack of agility compared to the Russian Archer."

@Clawn85:
Yes, i agree with you that IRIS-T and Aim9x are very good missiles but i disagree with you that Asram meets the quality standarts of any compared missile.

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 11:29 AM

Not every radar can pick up a SR-71, since unlike you may know, thaeres a speed limit wich radars are able to see, thats why, with the high altitude the plane was hard to detect. Only special dedicated equipment can do this.

recent radar missiles have IFF but its not full proof as 1 patriot shot down an UK Tornado.

Todays IR missiles are very hard to dodge, you can try out turn one provided it was fired in a difficult angle.

Also everyone tends to forget that IR is blocked by clouds.

In my opinion the most lethal are all these latest Radar missiles wich arent blocked by clouds and if fired within 10 miles ensures there will be always plenty of kinetic energy while the target will always seem standstill in the missiles eyes, specialy if the hard manuevering already made the planes go slower.

Having said this unlike IR missiles radar ones arent fired instantly at the press of the trigger, for the AMRAAM thers a 3 second delay, wich in a close dogfight might force the pilot go IR or guns.

"For preventig forest fires, cut down the trees" George W. Bush

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 11:53 AM

@Pilotasso

I heard the 3 seconds delay of the amraam can be turned of, is that true?

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 02:00 PM

Pilotasso wrote:

- Having said this unlike IR missiles radar ones arent
- fired instantly at the press of the trigger, for the
- AMRAAM thers a 3 second delay,

Why is this delay good for? If it can be turned off then I really see no reason to have it.

TT

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 02:16 PM

I think I heard on the news that the tornado shot down by the patriot had it's IFF function turned off. Anyone else heard that too? I'm not 100% sure.

Rinke

XyZspineZyX

06-16-2003, 11:12 PM

god.Tribun wrote:

- "...transverse control engine is still without parallel
- in the world.
- the AA-11 turned out to be superior to the
- Sidewinder AIM-9L in all respects: homing head field
- of view, acquisition range, maneuverability, ease of
- designation, and target lock-on. The Germans
- concluded that the ASRAAM demonstrated a serious
- lack of agility compared to the Russian Archer."

That was in 1989. The year now is 2003, as you undoubtedly know, and ASRAAM has been redesigned since.

XyZspineZyX

06-17-2003, 07:17 AM

Wolfman_96th wrote:
- That was in 1989. The year now is 2003, as you
- undoubtedly know, and ASRAAM has been redesigned
- since.

I agree, but R73 has also been redesigned since. It is now entering russian army in R73M3 version with an 90 deg. offbore capability...

regards, TT

XyZspineZyX

06-17-2003, 10:48 AM

Most deadly missiles currently in service:
1) AIM 120 C AMRAAM Blk. 6

2) AIM 9X Sidewinder - extremely hard to counter, sure dead for any AC in range even 90 dgr.off

3) RIM 66-67D for Aegis naval defense system - most sophisticated guiding system with huge digital more

4) AIM 54 C Improved Phoenix - ablsolutly deadly thing against high performance bombers and non balistic missiles

XyZspineZyX

06-17-2003, 11:42 AM

hello tigertalon,
yes like said it ultimately depends on how good the EW suite of the targeted aircraft is. but many times MANPADS only work against helos with poor EW suites. low flying targets usually have IR jammers turned on at all times to ensure the missile fails in early stages but modern MNAPADs do try to counter this however EW is a very fast and unpredictible game. so it comes down to how well you design/update your CMs Vs how good the missiles IRCCMs work.

Tribun,
"@Clawn85:
Yes, i agree with you that IRIS-T and Aim9x are very good missiles but i disagree with you that Asram meets the quality standarts of any compared missile."
wrong here. ASRAAM is pretty good. it outlasses R73 in almost all areas.

Pilotasso,
"In my opinion the most lethal are all these latest Radar missiles wich arent blocked by clouds and if fired within 10 miles ensures there will be always plenty of kinetic energy while the target will always seem standstill in the missiles eyes, specialy if the hard manuevering already made the planes go slower."
very correct. i completely agree. when the first ARH missiles became operational (e.g. Aim120A) it had a sucess rate of only 50%. Since then tactics were revised and any AF that does intensive BVR training (USAF, NATO, IDAF, Indian AF etc) will tell you that the best are for a BVR missile to be launched is very near WVR regimes. the latest kills made by NATO in the balkans against mig29s used these revised tactics. the missiles were launched at a range of 18km-20km making the missile very lethal.

the main idea is to get the missile terminal as quickly as possible. this is where it is most accurate and deadly. firing it at a close range allows the missile to go active(terminal phase) and it also allows for plenty of kinetic energy.

"Having said this unlike IR missiles radar ones arent fired instantly at the press of the trigger, for the AMRAAM thers a 3 second delay, wich in a close dogfight might force the pilot go IR or guns."
please explain this. i am not aware of any delay in firing a BVR missile. BVR missiles for close combat have Lock On Before Launch mode (LOBL) as opposed to Lock On After Launch (LOAL). IR missiles are preffered because they provide less warning and are much more mnaouverable.

gobtribune and Wolfman,
the IRIS-T exists because of ASRAAM. the germans new about the capabilities of R73 which they got from Soviets. in 80s the germans concluded that the ASRAAM would be supirior to R73 BUT would not provide a big enough advantage over it. in other words it wont give the decisive edge. so they pulled out and made IRIS-T. but as it turns out the ASRAAM surprised everyone and did better than anyone had expected. its manouverability is pretty good. the newer R73s still use the rotating mirror seekers as opposed to image infrared seeker that ASRAAM has. it also has a higher offboresight capability (90degs as opposed to 45 of R73)

XyZspineZyX

06-17-2003, 12:00 PM

I suppose we are not talking naval destruction.

So I say the Sidewinder J in worst cases...
It didn't hit as often, but the antique fuse often ignites INSIDE the target... Pretty funny stuff.

But for accuracy, well R73 here in Close quarters.
AIM 54C carries a huge warhead and travels pretty fast, neat.
Mach 5 anyone? But I have heard ABSURD numbers on its speed, like Mach 14.
Yup thats right.

But never the Matra Magic 550. It is no good.

Board didn't allow it, so call me Sweeper.

XyZspineZyX

06-17-2003, 12:29 PM

Asram is still inferior in all ways to the R73M4 (german vers).
The german Mig-29 will be trashed or selled. We got untill this year the newest equipment for it, like the new Archer M4. And it still is ways better than the british Asram. So Germany decided to make with some partners the IRIS-T Programm since they wouldnâÂ´t have any r73m4âÂ´s or Asrams...

XyZspineZyX

06-17-2003, 09:48 PM

Firebird, you mentioned the missiles carried by Aegis ships.

The latest version of the Standard SM-2 missile is, technically, the RIM-66M-5, SM-2MR block IIIB. The terminal seeker is a combination semiactive homer and IIR seeker, which should have good countermeasures resistance.

There were also two new extended range versions of the SM-2, RIM-156A and B. A wasn't procured in any significant quantity, and B was to be an antiballistic missile design, but was cancelled.

XyZspineZyX

06-18-2003, 12:23 PM

Tribun,

R73M4????? where the hell did you get that from? the best version ever to come out is R73M2. and even M2 has not been fielded yet even by the russians. german R73s are older R73E or M1 versions. only Indian AF after that got a somewhat modieifed archer with improved IRCCMs.

ASRAAM i generations ahead of the older R73 and even the new one does not stand up to it.

moe777

06-18-2003, 10:16 PM

Most lethal has to be the Genie A2A rocket, cant beat the destructive power of a Nuclear warhead, doesnt even have to hit the target to toast it.

__________________________________________________ ________
* You know the world is messed up when:
* The best golfer is a black guy,
* The best rapper is a white guy,
* The French are accusing the US of being arrogant,
* And Germany doesnt want to go to war.

XyZspineZyX

06-18-2003, 10:27 PM

Why do I have this weird feeling that you missread the title? It says "Most Lethal Missiles" and not "Most Lethal American Missiles" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

regards, TT

FireBird77 wrote:
- Most deadly missiles currently in service:
- 1) AIM 120 C AMRAAM Blk. 6
-
- 2) AIM 9X Sidewinder - extremely hard to counter,
- sure dead for any AC in range even 90 dgr.off
-
- 3) RIM 66-67D for Aegis naval defense system - most
- sophisticated guiding system with huge digital more
-
- 4) AIM 54 C Improved Phoenix - ablsolutly deadly
- thing against high performance bombers and non
- balistic missiles
-
-

XyZspineZyX

06-18-2003, 10:27 PM

best missle TV guided laser bombs..

U can control them from the cockpit..

THis monderator keeps changing what i say in the FORums WHAT a *******..

Message Edited on 06/19/0308:29PM by DeCap47

XyZspineZyX

06-19-2003, 05:39 AM

TV and Laser guided bombs are more accurate than GPS munitions. the only reason GPS is preffered is because of its all weather capability. it takes only a cloud to come in between the bomba and laser to disrupt the course of the bomb.
but in clear wheather LGBs outclass GPS.

XyZspineZyX

06-19-2003, 07:49 AM

Claw85 wrote:
- TV and Laser guided bombs are more accurate than GPS
- munitions. the only reason GPS is preffered is
- because of its all weather capability. it takes only
- a cloud to come in between the bomba and laser to
- disrupt the course of the bomb.
- but in clear wheather LGBs outclass GPS.

GPS bombs are another mith/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . Does any of you ever held in hand a GPS receiver? to observe how are the positions updates?Remeber that what u have on hand is the same as used on bombs, since US removed the accuracy penalty for civilian receivers. Also, GPS works on well known frequencies, so are quite easy to Jam.
But the so called GPS guided bomb are actualy a different thing. Are INS guided with GPS corrected impulses, meaninig that it receive GPS infos from time to time, where no full GPS info available. So the actualy CEP is 30m INS with 10m in GPS mode.

Now the current developent is a mixed Guidance Unit Laser/GPS, so it will benefit from both.

Does any of you figured that GPS is for targets with a well known position. They are trying now to improve it in flyight to receive data about targets from various platforms. So for mobile targets still the Mk,CBU,AGM things are used./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif